I do know that the word `sacred` is sometimes used without a religious context. To my way of thinking, that just devalues a powerful word.

So maybe the word 'sacred' has some sanctity? ;-)

I don't consider my use of sacred to devalue anything. It's those Christians that devalue it ;-)

No, my problem (is) that I consider all the land sacred. We are nothing without it, it is everything without us. What can be 'more' than that? Religion has used the term 'sacred', and it may well be born from that, but it offends me. I consider something or somewhere that reminds us that ALL is sacred to be sacred, not somewhere or something that reminds us that some people/land/idea is more 'sacred' than another.

I don't really think anything is 'sacred' to me, it's an odd word, I use it halfheartedly, knowing that everything is mutable within the grand scheme of things, and the Umbra Nihil is neither sanctuary or denial. In saying this, I am as selfish as the next person, and if, say, (factually) the Rollright Stones has played a part in my development (spiritual), then it remains as a place so special in my heart that I would physically fight someone who tried to pull it down. Would that be to 'defend' the 'concept' of my (so called) spiritual awakenings? Maybe, but I know we can think at the cost of feeling. And inevitably, all my arguments come back to spiritual vs empirical reductionism. Which gets us nowhere. Thankfully, archeologist reductionists are also employed in preserving the natural landscape for the rest of us.